I.BACKGROUND

[¶2]The employee, Vickie Johnson, suffered a work-related shoulder and neck
injury on April 25, 1997, while employed by S.D. Warren.Johnson returned to work in a light-duty
capacity and was laid off in January 1999, as a result of plant-wide
downsizing.

[¶3]Johnson
filed a petition for award in 2002.The parties stipulated that the employee received twenty-six
weeks of unemployment benefits from February to August 1999, and an additional
twenty-six weeks of benefits from September 1999 to February 2000.
The parties further
stipulated that Johnson received fifty weeks of TRA benefits from March 2000
to February 2001, which were utilized by the employee to attend Beal College
in order to study medical transcription.She discontinued her education after a year, contending that her work
injury interfered with her ability to complete her studies.

[¶5]The hearing
officer denied the employee's motion for further findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and we granted the employee's petition pursuant to 39-A
M.R.S.A. § 322 (2001).

II.DISCUSSION

[¶6]In Page v. Gen. Elec. Co., 391 A.2d 303, 309 (Me. 1978), we held that, because
the Workers' Compensation Act is uniquely statutory, the former Workers'
Compensation Commission had no authority to authorize a setoff for unemployment
benefits absent an express statute authorizing such a setoff.The statutory language authorizing
employers to reduce their obligation to pay workers' compensation by the amount
of unemployment benefits received by injured employees was originally enacted
in 1979, following our decision in Page.See 39 M.R.S.A. § 62-A (1989), repealed and
replaced by P.L. 1991, ch. 885,
§§ A-7, A-8.

[¶7]The current section 220 is
substantially similar to its predecessor statute, former 39 M.R.S.A. § 62-A, repealed
and replaced by P.L. 1991, ch. 885, §§ A-7,
A-8, and provides that compensation "to any employee for any period for which
the employee is receiving or has received benefits under the Employment
Security Law, Title 26, chapter 13, must be reduced by the amount of the
unemployment benefits."39-A
M.R.S.A. § 220(1) (2001).Pursuant
to the plain language of section 220, employers are entitled to reduce their
obligation to pay benefits by the amount of unemployment benefits received
pursuant to title 26, chapter 13.The hearing officer in the present case concluded that TRA benefits are
"unemployment benefits" pursuant to title 26, chapter 13.We disagree.

[¶8]The purpose of TRA benefits is to
provide a benefit to employees who lose their employment as a result of
competition from foreign trade in order to pursue job retraining.19 U.S.C.A. § 2296 (West 1999 &
Supp. 2003).See generally, Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace and
Agric. Implement Workers of Am. v. Brock,
477 U.S. 274, 277 (1986).The
Maine Department of Labor is authorized to administer benefit payments under
the Trade Act.See 19 U.S.C.A. § 2311(a) (West 1999).The statutory authorization for the
Maine Department of Labor to administer the Trade Act is 26 M.R.S.A. § 2051
(1988), which is included in chapter 26 of title 26.Therefore,
contrary to the hearing officer's conclusion, TRA benefits are more properly
understood to be benefits pursuant to chapter 26, not chapter 13.

[¶9]Moreover, the term "benefits" is
defined for purposes of chapter 13 as "the money payments payable to an
individual, as provided in this chapter,
with respect to his unemployment."26 M.R.S.A. § 1043(4) (1988).Therefore, the definition of unemployment benefits in chapter 13, is
limited to benefits provided inchapter
13, and does not appear to include TRA benefits pursuant to chapter 26.

[¶10]If the Legislature had intended to give
employers a setoff for all benefits paid pursuant to title 26, regardless of
the chapter, it would not have been necessary to limit the language expressly
to benefits received pursuant to chapter 13.Because TRA benefits are paid pursuant
to chapter 26 of title 26, we conclude that the hearing officer erred in
concluding that TRA payments are "unemployment benefits," pursuant to title 26,
chapter 13.

The
entry is:

The decision of the hearing officer of the
Workers' Compensation Board is vacated.Remanded to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings
consistent with the opinion herein.